Replies to LegCo questions

LCQ1: Genetically-modified food labelling guidelines

Following is a question by the Hon Li Wah-ming and a reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (November 7):

Question:

The Government has implemented a voluntary labelling system for genetically modified ("GM") food since July 2006 and formulated the relevant guidelines, stating that members of the trade should actively adopt the guidelines which have been jointly developed by representatives of the trade, consumer bodies and government departments. Moreover, the guidelines also state that "negative labelling", which indicates that the food items or food ingredients are derived from non-GM sources, is not recommended for food without GM counterparts, as it would be misleading to consumers. However, I still find that "negative labelling" has been applied to many food items on sale in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has assessed if members of the trade have actively adopted the above guidelines and applied positive labelling to the food items concerned voluntarily; if an assessment has been made, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(b) it has reviewed the prevalence of the application of "negative labelling", and whether it has proposals to improve the situation; if it does not have such proposals, of the reasons for that; and

(c) currently, it has plans to implement a mandatory labelling system for GM food; if so, of the legislative timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

Madam President,

(a) & (b) The Government implemented a voluntary labelling scheme for genetically modified (GM) food and promulgated the Guidelines on Voluntary Labelling of GM Food (the Guidelines) in July 2006. Since then, the Government has launched a series of promotional activities, which included issuing the Guidelines to various trade associations, notifying consulates and the relevant Mainland authorities and uploading the Guidelines to the webpage of the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) for easy reference by the trade and members of the public. The CFS has also publicised the Guidelines and explained them to the trade through various channels such as its Trade Consultation Forum, food safety seminars and GM food workshops. Leaflet on the voluntary labelling scheme for GM food was also produced for the information of the general public.

The CFS is conducting a market survey to evaluate the actual practices of the trade in applying the Guidelines and the practice of voluntary GM food labelling in the market. The key areas of the evaluation include the proportion of pre-packaged food with GM food labelling, the practice of positive and negative labelling and the format of the GM food labels. We expect to complete the evaluation by next year and to report the findings to the LegCo Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene in mid 2008.

(c) There is currently no international consensus on mandatory labelling of GM food. The issue of labelling system for GM food falls within the purview of the Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Owing to the diverse views among its member states, it is unlikely that the Codex can reach a consensus on the issue of GM food labelling in the near future.

At present, GM food labelling schemes implemented by various countries and areas differ, but can be broadly classified into mandatory and voluntary and mandatory approaches. For the mandatory approach, it can be further divided into the "labelling of designated GM products only" and "pan-labelling" approaches.

The voluntary labelling approach only requires the labelling of GM food that is significantly different from its conventional counterpart, in terms of composition, nutritional value and allergenicity. The United States of America and Canada are examples of countries adopting this approach.

Under the mandatory labelling approach for designated GM products, labelling is only required if the food products contain designated GM materials such as soya bean and corn. Countries and areas like Mainland China, Japan and Taiwan are adopting this approach.

For the mandatory pan-labelling approach, it requires the labelling of any food that contains GM ingredients exceeding a threshold level. The European Union, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea have adopted this approach.

Furthermore, among the countries or areas with GM food labelling systems, whether voluntary or mandatory, the specified levels of GM materials mandating labelling may vary significantly from 0.9% to 5%, in addition to differences in the type of food covered and the scope of the systems.

The above information shows that the approaches adopted for GM food labelling vary to a great extent among different countries and areas. The main reason is that individual country or region formulates its policy and system based on its own situation. Apart from food safety and consumers' right to information, other factors are also taken into account, including protection of local agricultural market, economy and trade, conservation of ecological environment and beliefs of their citizens. Compared with other countries and areas, Hong Kong has been adopting a free trade policy and is not an important agriculture producing area. In drawing up food regulatory measures, we are primarily concerned with public health and food safety, with little regard to the afore-mentioned factors. As such, our present priorities are to formulate the comprehensive Food Safety Bill, implement the Nutrition Labelling Scheme, review food safety standards, etc. For measures which serve mainly to provide more product information to consumers, e.g. GM food labelling system, we would monitor international development before deciding on the way forward.

If Hong Kong introduces a mandatory labelling system before international consensus has been reached on the standards for GM food labelling, it would be very difficult for Hong Kong, which relies heavily on imported food, to draw up the relevant scopes and standards. Moreover, according to the findings of the "Regulatory Impact Assessment on Labelling of GM Food" conducted earlier, there would be operational cost increases to the trade with a greater impact on the small and medium-sized enterprises, if a mandatory scheme is to be implemented. Therefore, when exploring the ways to formulate a regulatory regime for GM food labelling, we must take into consideration not only food safety issues and consumers' right to information, but also the regime's impact on the trade and the consumers, with a view to striking a balance between the provision of more product information to consumers, and the maintenance of the variety and stability of food supply. We will follow closely Codex's discussions on, and the latest development in, the labelling system for GM food, and will continue to communicate and discuss with the trade, consumer concern groups and other stakeholders. After completing the assessment of the effectiveness of the voluntary labelling scheme, we will further assess the urgency of implementing a GM food labelling system in Hong Kong, and formulate the way forward.


Ends/Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Issued at HKT 13:20

NNNN